Slashdot Mirror
The Neuroscientist Who Discovered He Was a Psychopath
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Joseph Stromberg writes at the Smithsonian that one afternoon in October 2005, neuroscientist James Fallon was sifting through thousands of PET scans to find anatomical patterns in the brain that correlated with psychopathic tendencies in the real world. 'Out of serendipity, I was also doing a study on Alzheimer's and as part of that, had brain scans from me and everyone in my family right on my desk,' writes Fallon. 'I got to the bottom of the stack, and saw this scan that was obviously pathological.' When he looked up the code, he was greeted by an unsettling revelation: the psychopathic brain pictured in the scan was his own. When he underwent a series of genetic tests, he got more bad news. 'I had all these high-risk alleles for aggression, violence and low empathy,' he says, such as a variant of the MAO-A gene that has been linked with aggressive behavior. It wasn't entirely a shock to Fallon, as he'd always been aware that he was someone especially motivated by power and manipulating others. Additionally, his family line included seven alleged murderers, including Lizzie Borden, infamously accused of killing her father and stepmother in 1892. Many of us would hide this discovery and never tell a soul, out of fear or embarrassment of being labeled a psychopath. Perhaps because boldness and disinhibition are noted psychopathic tendencies, Fallon has gone in the opposite direction, telling the world about his finding in a TED Talk, an NPR interview and now a new book published last month, The Psychopath Inside. 'Since finding all this out and looking into it, I've made an effort to try to change my behavior,' says Fallon. 'I've more consciously been doing things that are considered "the right thing to do," and thinking more about other people's feelings.'"
Some psychopaths crave attention. Take serial killers, for example. Some leave tips for the police, hoping to get caught. They like the high-profile attention they receive during their killing streak and the even higher attention after they're caught. Maybe he's just an attention whore.
If he were a psychopath, he'd not be disturbed by it. Of course, maybe he's only faking being disturbed by it to promote his career.
Or, he's simply a scientist who discovers that he himself is an interesting test case.
The problem with psychopathy is that the very definition came from selection bias.
We took a bunch of people who exhibited aberrant behaviour (socially unacceptable behaviour) and looked for common attributes. Then we invented a name for these attributes ("psychopathic") and the name became associated with the behaviour, but not the attributes.
There is abundant evidence that psychopathic tendencies are a spectrum. It's not a binary label, there's levels and shades of grey.
There is also abundant evidence that psychopathic tendencies are common.
There is also the evolutionary model, which proposes that leadership requires vision that isn't swayed by other people. The tribe will occasionally need leaders, so it's an advantage to have some psychopaths in the population. They are the ones who can step back and analyze a situation rationally, who aren't helpless against the flow of public opinion, and are immune to groupthink and mob psychology.
It should come as no surprise that lots of people are closet psychopaths, to any specific degree. The problem isn't that they are psychopaths, it's that they somehow feel that that they are damaged, dangerous, or somehow unacceptable. (Viz: gay people).
Relax, it's all right. We've identified a set of genes, you have a subset, and life is what you make of it.
Spot on.
We ALL have psychopathic tendencies, empathic tendencies, etc ad nauseum. All of us learn, from the cradle, what is "acceptable" behavior, and what is not. We are all born with the potential to become almost anything, good or bad. Some of us have to work hard to learn some things, others of us just follow our natural inclinations.
We actually NEED all of these traits, IMHO. Consider the doctor - if he's psychopathic, then he's probably a cold, analytical, unfeeling kind of guy. Is that necessarily a "bad thing"? Absolutely not - those traits are good things in a scientist. He isn't going to allow stupid feelings, opinions, or emotions stand in the way of his research.
Sure, there is probably some point, or degree, at which being psychopathic makes you totally worthless to society. Where is that point?
Lizzie Borden probably had some value, up until she committed murder. PERHAPS had she been properly evaluated, and received counseling, she might have understood herself, and the people around her better. Being better able to relate with her family and acquaintances, she may have made more intelligent decisions. Or not - each person remains an individual after all. We each make conscious decisions to get along with people, or not to get along.
IMHO, we, as a race, developed all of our traits and tendencies for a reason. Even our worst traits have value under certain conditions and circumstances. Our best traits can actually work against us in other conditions and circumstances.
I wonder how many slashdotters have ever taken a test, only to learn things about themselves that they didn't know. A leadership course in the Navy included a self-evaluation test, that was never turned in to the instructors. The purpose of the test was to reveal to the student which type of leadership he could use most effectively. You may, or may not, imagine my surprise to learn that I was primarily an authoritarian. (note that being 'primarily' authoritarian doesn't preclude other tendencies) Once I understood that somewhat important fact, I was able to improve my leadership ability tremendously.
We could probably all benefit from a little self analysis.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Subjectively he was a functional member of society and a respected scientist and he was subjectively aware that he was motivated by power and a tendency to manipulate other.
So he felt that he needed to be more introspective about his behaviour when he found out something about himself that threatened to make the vaguely subjective awareness into something objective. Why is that troubling? Intelligent people often don't like being a subject to the fates. To me it would be more troubling if as a functioning member of society and a respected scientist he was simply fatalistic about it and say went on a killing rampage because he discovered this fact about himself.
Correlation does not make causation...
Even normal people can turn empathy off under certain circumstances or through conditioning.
Like modern military training. [/sad-fact]
Nonsense. Military training, modern and traditional, doesn't teach empathy disconnection except in one narrow way, which is that combat training teaches soldiers to view their targets as "targets", not as people. It's always been done that way, because it's necessary to get soldiers to overcome the natural antipathy most of them have for killing. What military training is mostly about, besides building strength and stamina and teaching particular skills, is building esprit de corps, a sense of solidarity with fellow soldiers as well, of course, as a habit of obedience to orders (though post WWII most militaries leaven that with classes on the distinction between lawful and unlawful orders).
Actually, the most modern trend for US military training, as in the last 5-10 years, is exactly the opposite; it's training to increase empathy. The Marine Corps in particular has established a very interesting program training Marines that they should be "Ethical Marine Warriors". The catchphrase of this program is "The Ethical Warrior is a protector of life. Whose life? Self and others. Which others? All others." It's taught with the aid of stories like this one.
In one particular country in Asia Minor, the unrest was beginning to have strategic implications during that delicate time of détente. The trouble centered on the presence of an American missile base there. The local people said that they wanted the base closed and the Americans to go home. Humphrey’s job was to find a solution to the conflict.
The basic problem was plain old culture shock. The Americans working in that poor ally country thought that the local people were ‘dumb, dirty, dishonest, lazy, unsanitary, immoral, violent, cruel, crazy, and downright subhuman,’ and what’s more, they let them know it. No matter what he did, Humphrey couldn’t stop the negative talk—partially because some of it seemed true!
One day, as a diversion, Humphrey decided to go hunting for wild boar with some people from the American embassy. They took a truck from the motor pool and headed out to the boondocks, stopping at a village to hire some local men to beat the brush and act as guides.
This village was very poor. The huts were made of mud and there was no electricity or running water. The streets were unpaved dirt and the whole village smelled. Flies abounded. The men looked surly and wore dirty clothes. The women covered their faces, and the children had runny noses and were dressed in rags.
It wasn’t long before one American in the truck said, ‘This place stinks.’ Another said, ‘These people live just like animals.’ Finally, a young air force man said, ‘Yeah, they got nothin’ to live for; they may as well be dead.’
What could you say? It seemed true enough.
But just then, an old sergeant in the truck spoke up. He was the quiet type who never said much. In fact, except for his uniform, he kind of reminded you of one of the tough men in the village. He looked at the young airman and said, ‘You think they got nothin’ to live for, do you? Well, if you are so sure, why don’t you just take my knife, jump down off the back of this truck, and go try to kill one of them?’
There was dead silence in the truck.
Humphrey was amazed. It was the first time that anyone had said anything that had actually silenced the negative talk about the local people. The sergeant went on to say, ‘I don’t know either why they value their lives so much. Maybe it’s those snotty nosed kids, or the women in the pantaloons. But whatever it is, they care about their lives and the lives of their loved ones, same as we Americans do. And if we don’t stop talking bad about
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
"...Doctors were low on psychopathy, but surgeons were actually in the top ten..."
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Pros-to-Being-a-Psychopath-176019901.html
Not everyone who is a psychopath chooses to do evil. It's well known that many people who lack a visceral, emotional "sense of right and wrong" operate instead on logic and rules that substitute for a sense of right and wrong; and like this person, they seek feedback from trusted people about the morality of their actions. For them, being a psychopath is a brain disability which can be dealt with, and not a license to run around killing people and wreaking havoc.